Is the Bible Really True?

[karl schuch]

The bible was not written by apologists. It was written by eye witnesses to the events.

Thats where i get my information from.

sorry, but the contemporaries of Jesus were Aramaic speaking Hebrews who were illiterate fishermen and farmers, the Gospels were written by highly literate Greeks decades after the alleged events. None of the gospels claim to be written by eyewitnesses and are written in the 3rd person.

 

[karl schuch]

Sorry, I've come in late on this conversation and have only read the first page and the last page and am surprised that people are still talking about Horus and Jonah et al.

There's plenty of research and writing on the Historical Jesus question without looking for ancient Egyptian connections or other arcane hypotheses. Professional scholars are usually pretty confident that there was a man called Jesus/Jeshua/Yeshua who taught in Galilee in the first part of the first century, but what he said and what he did are very uncertain now. Perhaps only 20% of what he is alleged to have said in the Gospels can be reliably attributed to him, and what he did, when and with whom is pretty dependent on Mark. Matthew and Luke drew heavily on Mark and on a no longer extant source called "Q" (which is more of a sayings source). John doesn't really attempt to portray a real person, but an idealised one who makes long speeches and knows the future.

Of course, professional biblical scholars are conservative and are unlikely to break away from the present paradigm (that Jesus was an historical figure) unless it really no longer works for them, or no longer works at all. Most of them are employed by churches, church-connected institutions or university centres and departments that are funded by churches, so it has cash value for them to profess that Jesus was an historical figure and that the Gospel narratives and logia have a reasonable basis in fact.

Not all though. A few brave souls incline towards mythicism. Robert Price is one. Joseph Hoffman has said we'll never really know whether Jesus was an historical person or not. Dominic Crossan has said that Jesus existed but the Gospels are largely parables about Jesus as well as by him. Geza Vermes saw him as a Galilean Hasid and miracle-worker like Honi the Circle Maker and Hanina ben Dosa. I think many will accept that the sources are not verifiable enough to justify a firm belief in the Jesus of the Gospels, but there was most likely a real man behind the stories.

Earl Doherty rejects the historicity of Jesus entirely and has written an excruciatingly detailed 800-page book (Jesus, Neither God nor Man) setting out his reasons. I think Doherty's arguments about Jesus are very strong, but he is blackballed by the academy because he's not one of them (no PhD; doesn't work in a university or seminary, etc) and tends to be secretive about his qualifications. (PS, his arguments about Paul - the first half of the book - seem pretty speculative.)

The argument that we know as much about Jesus as we do about Confucius, Socrates, etc is not really a very strong argument. People don't normally question the existence of these men, though we only know them by report, because they didn't claim to be and were never claimed to be the Son of God and workers of miracles. In any case, we now know that some presumed ancient persons, e.g. Homer and Isaiah, were compilations of more than one person, and some, e.g. Abraham, Noah, may well never have existed as historical individuals.

Perhaps the better question than "Is the Bible true?" would be "What does it mean?". Why did the writers and editors of the varied and colourful books of the Bible put this stuff down, work it over and collect it into a library of sacred writings? It meant a lot to them, and yet it varies widely from triumphalist narrative, as in the historical works, to the anger and anguish and exhortation of the prophetic works, to the moral tales of Ruth and Job, to the pessimistic reflections of Ecclesiastes and the homespun wisdom of Proverbs. What do all these books have in common? What are they driving at? And does it matter if there's a fair amount of myth and legend and hagiography and fancifulness in them?

 

[karl schuch]

sorry, but there is no reliable documentation that Jesus existed, but I agree that there are more interesting questions.
As for the 20% being reliably attributed to him - actually that would be about zero % because there were no scribes following him around writing things down in Greek, rather those gospels were written decades after the alleged utterances.

 

[karl schuch]

You say: Is the Bible true...depends on who you ask. I totally agree with you on that. I also agree that truth is in the eye of the beholder. It must have been a tough road for you to come out of a fairly conservative Christian background and find your thinking changing so drastically. Can I ask it this happened over a long period of time or was it just one day it was clear to you? If you don't want to answer that question I understand. I'm just a curious old bird.

I agree that the church would have burned those who said the earth was not the center of the universe. In fact, I believe that they may have done that to a couple of poor souls.

As to deism, I took a really hard look at it and found it quite interesting. I'd love to discuss it further sometime in a different thread.

 

[karl schuch]

"I also agree that truth is in the eye of the beholder".... I'm trying to figure out if you are serious...?

 

[karl schuch]

The bible was not written by apologists. It was written by eye witnesses to the events.

Thats where i get my information from.

well, there are no eyewitness accounts at all.

 

[maggie2]

Sorry, I've come in late on this conversation and have only read the first page and the last page and am surprised that people are still talking about Horus and Jonah et al.

There's plenty of research and writing on the Historical Jesus question without looking for ancient Egyptian connections or other arcane hypotheses. Professional scholars are usually pretty confident that there was a man called Jesus/Jeshua/Yeshua who taught in Galilee in the first part of the first century, but what he said and what he did are very uncertain now. Perhaps only 20% of what he is alleged to have said in the Gospels can be reliably attributed to him, and what he did, when and with whom is pretty dependent on Mark. Matthew and Luke drew heavily on Mark and on a no longer extant source called "Q" (which is more of a sayings source). John doesn't really attempt to portray a real person, but an idealised one who makes long speeches and knows the future.

Of course, professional biblical scholars are conservative and are unlikely to break away from the present paradigm (that Jesus was an historical figure) unless it really no longer works for them, or no longer works at all. Most of them are employed by churches, church-connected institutions or university centres and departments that are funded by churches, so it has cash value for them to profess that Jesus was an historical figure and that the Gospel narratives and logia have a reasonable basis in fact.

Not all though. A few brave souls incline towards mythicism. Robert Price is one. Joseph Hoffman has said we'll never really know whether Jesus was an historical person or not. Dominic Crossan has said that Jesus existed but the Gospels are largely parables about Jesus as well as by him. Geza Vermes saw him as a Galilean Hasid and miracle-worker like Honi the Circle Maker and Hanina ben Dosa. I think many will accept that the sources are not verifiable enough to justify a firm belief in the Jesus of the Gospels, but there was most likely a real man behind the stories.

Earl Doherty rejects the historicity of Jesus entirely and has written an excruciatingly detailed 800-page book (Jesus, Neither God nor Man) setting out his reasons. I think Doherty's arguments about Jesus are very strong, but he is blackballed by the academy because he's not one of them (no PhD; doesn't work in a university or seminary, etc) and tends to be secretive about his qualifications. (PS, his arguments about Paul - the first half of the book - seem pretty speculative.)

The argument that we know as much about Jesus as we do about Confucius, Socrates, etc is not really a very strong argument. People don't normally question the existence of these men, though we only know them by report, because they didn't claim to be and were never claimed to be the Son of God and workers of miracles. In any case, we now know that some presumed ancient persons, e.g. Homer and Isaiah, were compilations of more than one person, and some, e.g. Abraham, Noah, may well never have existed as historical individuals.

Perhaps the better question than "Is the Bible true?" would be "What does it mean?". Why did the writers and editors of the varied and colourful books of the Bible put this stuff down, work it over and collect it into a library of sacred writings? It meant a lot to them, and yet it varies widely from triumphalist narrative, as in the historical works, to the anger and anguish and exhortation of the prophetic works, to the moral tales of Ruth and Job, to the pessimistic reflections of Ecclesiastes and the homespun wisdom of Proverbs. What do all these books have in common? What are they driving at? And does it matter if there's a fair amount of myth and legend and hagiography and fancifulness in them?

Wow, I really enjoyed this thoughtful and thought-provoking post. Why does it surprise you that people are still talking about Horus and Jonah? I don't think that this kind of conversation will ever end. I think we will always wonder and discuss and personally, I think that's a good thing. I find that it is through just suck discussions that I learn things. I certainly learned a few things from this post.

I think that when discussing whether or not Jesus was a real person you lean towards the undecided group at the moment. If not, you certainly seem to have a very balanced view of some of the various voices both pro and con on the topic. I totally agree that those Bible scholars who are firm in insisting that Jesus was human and God have a financial stake in their stance. That is one of the reasons I choose to give them a bit less weight than those who see Jesus more as a myth. People like Price, Hoffman and Crossan stand to lose credibility in some ways, particularly in the scholarly world and so I see their views as having less of a chance to be motivated, at least in part, by financial concerns.

I haven't read Doherty's book but from what you say about it I may have to get it from the library and give it a go. Is it hard reading or does it read fairly easily?

I agree with you on your comments about Socrates and Confucius not being good comparisons to Jesus. I also find your comments on Homer and Isaiah interesting. Something new for me to look into as I didn't know that they were considered compilations. Do you have any links to anything about that?

I also like your questions about the Bible. They are thought-provoking and, in my opinion, and when I think about it, are all questions I have asked at one time or another. In fact, have asked myself many times. I agree that there is much to learn from the Bible, regardless of whether it is true or myth. However, I'll leave my "is the Bible true" question as is in this post. Maybe some of those questions will find their way into another post.

 

[Ouroboros]

We know in some cases, they did not even recognize him

That's easily explained.

Doctor Who was Jesus. He died and was regenerated by the TARDIS. As all whovians know, the Doctor change appearance (most of the time) when regenerated.

(Also, for anyone wondering, Noah was also the Doctor, the arc was bigger on the inside to fit all animals. A total giveaway.)

 

[karl schuch]

While I respect your point of view, I do disagree with your conclusions. Apart from the Bible can you point me to any well-documented books that show him as a 'real' person? I do agree with you that Jesus left a mark on history and that mark is very real.

As to calling Christianity a myth, yes they are doing that. But may I suggest that maybe you need to go back to school and read some material that is not written by an apologist, but by someone who has no axe to grind as far as Christianity is concerned and expose yourself to a different point of view?

myth
miTH/folk tale, folk story, legend, tale, story, fable, saga, mythos, lore, folklore, mythology
"ancient Greek myths"

• traditional stories or legends collectively.
  "the heroes of Greek myth"

2.
a widely held but false belief or idea.

 

[karl schuch]

myth

noun: myth; plural noun: myths

1. 1.
   a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

• traditional stories or legends collectively.
  "the heroes of Greek myth"

2.
a widely held but false belief or idea.[/QUOTE]

 

[karl schuch]

While I respect your point of view, I do disagree with your conclusions. Apart from the Bible can you point me to any well-documented books that show him as a 'real' person? I do agree with you that Jesus left a mark on history and that mark is very real.

As to calling Christianity a myth, yes they are doing that. But may I suggest that maybe you need to go back to school and read some material that is not written by an apologist, but by someone who has no axe to grind as far as Christianity is concerned and expose yourself to a different point of view?

myth

noun
noun: myth; plural noun: myths

1. 1.
   a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

 

[Amadon]

Provide credible sources.

The Urantia Book , Page 651

 

[outhouse]

Why is it garbage?

*

because he is tracing the monotheism that grew in Israelite cultures to Egypt, when there is absolutely no connection what so ever.

He also claims moses is a character from memory, not from history.

This is where I have problems because if it was from memory, we should have memory of their Canaanite true heritage.

And the monotheism that existed in Egypt, has no real tie to the development of monotheism in Israelite cultures.


He is taking a very vague tie, and making more out of it, then is actually there.

 

[outhouse]

The Urantia Book , Page 651

Not credible sorry.

 

[Pegg]

sorry, but the contemporaries of Jesus were Aramaic speaking Hebrews who were illiterate fishermen and farmers, the Gospels were written by highly literate Greeks decades after the alleged events. None of the gospels claim to be written by eyewitnesses and are written in the 3rd person.

Levi, otherwise known as Matthew, was a tax collector. He was most certainly not illiterate.

And I dont think we should put a modern standard to an ancient text.... not all ancient authors did write their names on the documents written by them. We can see that by the cuniform tablets found in the ancient city of Babylon and other places. Thousands of tablets documenting a whole range of things in the ancient city, yet very few of them bear the writers name or signature. Look at the hyroglyphics in Egypt...how many have the writers name on them?? It simply wasnt thought to be necessary.

But we can find evidence within the gospel for who wrote it. In the Gospel of John the writer identifies himself as "the disciple whom Jesus used to love" and he concludes at John 21:24 saying 'This is the disciple+ who gives this witness about these things and who wrote these things, and we know that his witness is true.
Jesus 3 closest disciples were James, Peter and John. Of these three apostles, it wasnt James because the gospel was written long after he was put to death about 44 C.E. by Herod Agrippa I. It wasnt written by Peter because he is mentioned in the gospel as being alongside “the disciple whom Jesus used to love.”—Joh 21:20, 21.
That only leaves John as the writer. And the earliest christians always accepted this gospel and called it by Johns name. So we dont need Johns signature to know that he wrote it.

 

[outhouse]

Matthew, was a tax collector. He was most certainly not illiterate.

First of all, if it was really a follower of Jesus, he would not have to copy Mark for the foundation of his text. But he did, he plagiarized Mark to write his book.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

7th Day (Saturday): 5514-12-2 (February 21, 2015)

Is the Bible Really True?
I believe that the Bible is true for the following reasons:

• God oversaw the preservation of the Holy Scriptures. For example, biblical scholars believe that Moses was not an eyewitness to the creation of the universe and the
earth; yet Yahweh told him what to write. Hence, the Holy Bible has an edge over
other ancient manuscripts because the writings of the men are inspired by God
Almighty.

• Every testimony and events truly occurred if you factor God into the picture. That is
how Noah and the creatures survived the worldwide flood. That is how Jonah
survived three days in a big fish. That is how Jesus Christ rose three days from he
grave. Include an all powerful God in your forensic science and everything will
scientifically make sense logically.

I believe that the following topic from ChristianAnswers.Net summaries five main
points better as to the reasons hundreds of millions of Jew and Christians consider the Bible to be true:

How do we know the Bible is true?

There have been hundreds of books written on the subject of the evidences of the
divine inspiration of the Bible, and these evidences are many and varied. Most people
today, unfortunately, have not read any of these books. In fact, few have even read the
Bible itself! Thus, many people tend to go along with the popular delusion that the Bible
is full of mistakes and is no longer relevant to our modern world.

Nevertheless the Bible writers claimed repeatedly that they were transmitting the very
Word of God, infallible and authoritative in the highest degree. This is an amazing thing
for any writer to say, and if the forty or so men who wrote the Scriptures were wrong in
these claims, then they must have been lying, or insane, or both.

But, on the other hand, if the greatest and most influential book of the ages, containing
the most beautiful literature and the most perfect moral code ever devised, was written
by deceiving fanatics, then what hope is there for ever finding meaning and purpose in
this world?

If one will seriously investigate these Biblical evidences, he will find that their claims of
divine inspiration (stated over 3,000 times, in various ways) were amply justified.

Fulfilled Prophecies

The remarkable evidence of fulfilled prophecy is just one case in point. Hundreds of
Bible prophecies have been fulfilled, specifically and meticulously, often long after the
prophetic writer had passed away.

For example, Daniel the prophet predicted in about 538 BC (Daniel 9:24-27) that Christ
would come as Israel's promised Savior and Prince 483 years after the Persian emperor
would give the Jews authority to rebuild Jerusalem, which was then in ruins. This was
clearly and definitely fulfilled, hundreds of years later.

There are extensive prophecies dealing with individual nations and cities and with the
course of history in general, all of which have been literally fulfilled. More than 300
prophecies were fulfilled by Christ Himself at His first coming. Other prophecies deal
with the spread of Christianity, as well as various false religions, and many other
subjects.

There is no other book, ancient or modern, like this. The vague, and usually erroneous,
prophecies of people like Jeanne Dixon, Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, and others like
them are not in the same category at all, and neither are other religious books such as
the Koran, the Confucian Analects, and similar religious writings. Only the Bible
manifests this remarkable prophetic evidence, and it does so on such a tremendous
scale as to render completely absurd any explanation other than divine revelation.

Unique Historical Accuracy

The historical accuracy of the Scriptures is likewise in a class by itself, far superior to
the written records of Egypt, Assyria, and other early nations. Archeological
confirmations of the Biblical record have been almost innumerable in the last century.
Dr. Nelson Glueck, probably the greatest modern authority on Israeli archeology, has
said:

"No archeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of
archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail
historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical
descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."

Scientific Accuracy

Another striking evidence of divine inspiration is found in the fact that many of the
principles of modern science were recorded as facts of nature in the Bible long before
scientist confirmed them experimentally. A sampling of these would include:

• Roundness of the earth (Isaiah 40:22)
• Almost infinite extent of the sidereal universe (Isaiah 55:9)
• Law of conservation of mass and energy (II Peter 3:7)
• Hydrologic cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7)
• Vast number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22)
• Law of increasing entropy (Psalm 102:25-27)
• Paramount importance of blood in life processes (Leviticus 17:11)
• Atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6)
• Gravitational field (Job 26:7)

These are not stated in the technical jargon of modern science, of course, but in terms
of the basic world of man's everyday experience; nevertheless, they are completely in
accord with the most modern scientific facts.

It is significant also that no real mistake has ever been demonstrated in the Bible—in
science, in history, or in any other subject. Many have been claimed, of course, but
conservative Bible scholars have always been able to work out reasonable solutions to
all such problems.

Unique Structure

The remarkable structure of the Bible should also be stressed. Although it is a collection
of 66 books, written by 40 or more different men over a period of 2,000 years, it is
clearly one Book, with perfect unity and consistency throughout.

The individual writers, at the time of writing, had no idea that their message was
eventually to be incorporated into such a Book, but each nevertheless fits perfectly into
place and serves its own unique purpose as a component of the whole. Anyone who
diligently studies the Bible will continually find remarkable structural and mathematical
patterns woven throughout its fabric, with an intricacy and symmetry incapable of
explanation by chance or collusion.

The one consistent theme of the Bible, developing in grandeur from Genesis to
Revelation, is God's great work in the creation and redemption of all things, through His
only Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Bible’s Unique Effect

The Bible is unique also in terms of its effect on individual men and on the history of
nations. It is the all-time best seller, appealing both to hearts and minds, beloved by at
least some in every race or nation or tribe to which it has gone, rich or poor, scholar or
simple, king or commoner, men of literally every background and walk of life. No other
book has ever held such universal appeal nor produced such lasting effects.
One final evidence that the Bible is true is found in the testimony of those who have
believed it. Multitudes of people, past and present, have found from personal
experience that its promises are true, its counsel is sound, its commands and
restrictions are wise, and its wonderful message of salvation meets every need for both
time and eternity.

Related information on this topic

When we say that the Bible is the Word of God, does that imply that it is completely
accurate, or does it contain insignificant inaccuracies in details of history and science?

• How can the Bible be infallible if it is written by fallible humans?
• Answers to supposed Bible “contradictions” and puzzles
• Is the Bible truth or tabloid?

INTERNAL HARMONY - Answers to a skeptic's questions about whether the Bible's
internal harmony is truly evidence of its divine inspiration - Visit the website regarding:
• Biblical prophecies
• Creation and science
• Bible archaeology

The Bible Has the Answer book by Henry Morris, Ph.D, and Martin E. Clark
Copyright © 1995, Master Books, All Rights Reserved - except as noted on attached
“Usage and Copyright” page that grants ChristianAnswers.Net users generous rights for
putting this page to work.

Shabbath Shalom

 

[psychoslice]

First of all, if it was really a follower of Jesus, he would not have to copy Mark for the foundation of his text. But he did, he plagiarized Mark to write his book.

And then added a chapter or two to make people believe Jesus ascended to heaven.

 

[Brandywine]

Michael Hari wrote a great essay in One Faith that explains why this sort of hypothesis cannot explain orthodox Christianity. You can get it on Amazon. I read it last Thursday and I am still thinking about some of it. But I admit I am a big fan.

 

[Twilight Hue]

well, there are no eyewitness accounts at all.

True. The Bible was effectivaly debunked ever since there was mention of camals during a period prior to the actual introduction of the animals. Christians have been in denial ever since that evidence was revealed. It leaves little doubt that eyewitness testimony was fabricated.